On 18 August 2015 at 01:18, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> wrote: > FETCH [in WITH]
I'd be a huge fan of this one. I'd love to see FETCH in subqueries, too. Currently doing anything like this requires an ugly PL/PgSQL wrapper. The cursor would have to be known at plan-time so it could be interrogated for its types. -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services On 18 August 2015 at 01:18, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> wrote: > Folks, > > In the interest of consistency, which is to say, of not hitting > barriers that are essentially implementation details, I'd like to > propose that we allow the rest of the row-returning commands inside > WITH clauses. We currently have: > > SELECT > VALUES > INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE ... RETURNING > > We don't yet have: > > EXPLAIN [ANALYZE] > SHOW > FETCH > > A little further out there, although this would be an API change, we > might consider allowing the results of VACUUM and ANALYZE as row sets, > which would also be good to wrap in WITH. > > Is there a good reason, or more than one, why we shouldn't have all > the row-returning commands in WITH? > > Cheers, > David. > -- > David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ > Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter > Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com > > Remember to vote! > Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
